Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9



DEFINITION OF TORT where there are things falling or thrown from the
• is an old French word derived from the latin “tortus” tenement occupied by the family.

which means “twisted” or a “crooked”.

• There is no intention to cause damage, negligence is
• common use in English as a general synonym for not necessary. The resulting injury is sufficient or that it
is enough that the law by reason of public policy,
• Obligations arising from non-contractual negligence imposes liability upon the defendant.

and includes not only negligence but also intentional • It is sufficient that that the act caused injury to another.

criminal acts such as assault and battery, false • Akin to the principle of res ipsa loquitur.

imprisonment and deceit (Anglo-American Law

• Tortuous liability which arises from the breach of a duty • Includes not only negligent acts, but also intentional
primarily fixed by laws; such duty is toward persons acts as well as assault and battery (intentional infliction
generally and its breach is redressible by an action for of a harmful or offensive contact with a person of the
unliquidated damages. (Winfield)

• It might be possible to define a tort by enumerating the • It it the one who pushed who is liable as exemplified in
things that it is not. It is not a crime, it is not a breach the case of Mendoza v Arrieta where a jeep was at a
of contract, it is not necessarily concerned with stop position at the back of a car. A speeding truck
property rights or problems of government, but it is the bumped the jeep causing the latter to hit the car. Jeep
occupant of a large residuary field remaining if there owner is not liable as he was not negligent, but it
are take out of law. (Prosser)
should be the truck driver instead.

• Intent: used to denote that the actor desires to cause

CLASSIFICATION OF TORT the consequences of his act, or that he believes that
1. Intentional Tort the consequences are substantially certain to result
• Can be found from various provision of the Civil Code from it.

specifically the rules on Human Relations

• If an actor desires to cause the consequences of his CULPA CULPA CULPA
act or that he believes that the consequences of his CONTRACTUAL AQUILIANA CRIMINAL
acts are certain to cause damage to another.
• One that is considered as the equivalent of dolo or Negligence is Negligence Negligence here
deceit in the Penal Code or one with deliberate intent. merely incidental here is direct, is direct,
• Reason: For every right a person may have, he has a to performance substantive, substantive,
correlative duty to respect the right of another. of an obligation independent. independent of
already existing a contract.
2. Negligent Tort because of a
• Are those found in the rule on quasi-delicts under contract.
Articles 2176 to 2194 of the Civil Code.
• There is negligence With pre-existing No pre-existing No pre-existing
• Negligence: the omission to do something which a obligation. obligation obligation
reasonable man guided by those considerations which except the duty (except the duty
ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would to be careful in never to harm
do or the doing of something which a prudent and all human others)
reasonable man would do. actuations.
• Test to determine Negligence: Would a prudent man in Proof needed: Proof needed: Proof needed in
the position of the person to negligence is attributed preponderance preponderance crime- proof
foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable of evidence of evidence beyond
consequence of the course about to be pursued? If reasonable
yes, he is negligent, if not he is not negligent. doubt.
3. Strict liability Tort
• are exemplified by the rules on nuisance, the provision
on the liability of a possessor of animals causing
damage to another or even the owner, the liability of
manufacturers of food stuffs causing damage to the
end user, or the liability of the head of a family in cases

Jumalon and Pamonag 2018 ! San Beda College Alabang School of Law 1|page
the selection and the selection not a proper QUASI-DELICTS
supervision of and supervision defense in culpa Art. 2176. Whoever by act of omission causes damage to
employees is not of employees is criminal.
another, there being no fault or negligence, is obliged to
a proper, a proper, Emloyee’s guilt pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if
complete complete is automatically there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the
defense, but may defense insofar the employer’s parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the
mitigate as employers or guilt, if the provisions of this chapter.

damages. guardians are former is

concerned. insolvent. ELEMENTS OF QUASI-DELICT
1. Negligent act or omission of the defendant

The existence of Victim has to Accused is 2. Damages to the plaintiff

a contract which prove presumed 3. The connection between the cause and effect
was not carried negligence of innocent until between such negligence and damage.

out raises the the defendant. the contrary is 4. No pre-existing contractual relationship between the
presumption that proved. parties.

debtor is at fault Prosecution has

and it is his duty the burden of Tort is wider in scope than quasi-delicts. Tort include
to prove that proving the negligent and intentional criminal acts and assault and
there was no negligence of battery false imprisonment or deceit. Quasi-delict is
negligence in the accused. within the concept of Art. 2176.

carrying out the

terms of the The following must be present in order to have a cause
contract. of action for damages for quasi-delict:

1. A legal right of the plaintiff and correlative obligation

of the defendant to respect such right.

2. Ac act or omission of the defendant violative of said


• Protects not only the individual but the society.

3. The defendant’s act must be the proximate cause of

• Seeks to reduce the risks and burden of living in the
the violation of plaintiff’s right.

society and to allocate them among the members of

4. Damages incurred as a result of the violation.


• Serves to protect different interests and rights.


• Art. 19 of NCC: pervades the entire legal system and
have caused damage to another, yet the actor is not
ensures that a person suffering damage in the course
liable if there was no violation of a legal right.

of another’s exercise of right or performance of duty

should find himself without relief. It sets the standards
PSBA, et.al vs. CA, et. al

of the exercise of right and performance of duties: (1)

Act with Justice, (2) give everyone his due; (3) observe - the school is bound to protect the students for as long
as they are in campus or even outside if there is an
honesty and good faith.

activity sanctioned by it.

• Art. 21: Provides remedy for the compensation to the

person injured by the willful act, an action for damages.
- Loco Parentis: damage should have been caused or
inflicted by pupils or students of the educational
institution sought to be held liable for the acts of its
students while in custody.

1. To provide peaceful means for adjusting the rights of

the parties who might otherwise take the law into
Liability for tort despite a Contract
their own hands.

Liability from tort may exist even is there is a

2. Deter wrongful conduct.

contract for the act that breaks the contract may also be
3. To encourage socially responsible behaviour as
a tort, should it be done in bad faith and be violative of
exemplified by Art. 19 of NCC

Art. 21 of NCC, gives a cause to view the act as quasi-

4. To restore injured parties to their original condition
delict. (Airfrance)

insofar as the law can do this, by compensating them

for their injury.

Negligence of Banks in treating accounts of client

Tort law seeks to prevent one from taking the law into
The bank liable for damages as it was remiss in
their own hands, it provides for remedies n favor of an
its duty to treat the accounts of its clients with the
aggrieved party for the wrongful act of another which
highest degree of care considering the fiduciary nature of
does not amount into a crime.
its obligation.

Jumalon and Pamonag 2018 ! San Beda College Alabang School of Law 2|page
Coverage of Art. 2176: covers not only acts committed carriers to enforce its contractual obligations. (Phil.
with negligence but also acts which are voluntary and Rabbit Bus Lines v. IAC)

intentional. (Elcano v. Hill)

Doctrine of Last Clear Chance and Contributory

Test of Negligence: would a prudent man in the position Negligence
of the person to whom negligence is attributed foresee The contributory negligence of the party injured
harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence will not defeat the claim for damages if it is shown that
of the course about to be pursued. (Heddy Gan Yu v. CA)
the defendant might, by exercise of reasonable care and
prudence, have avoided the consequences of the
Emergency Rule: One who suddenly finds himself in a negligence of the injured party. Persons with last clear
place of danger, and is required to act without time to chance are considered solely responsible for the
consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid consequences thereof. (Picart v. Smith)

the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence if he

fails to adopt what appears to be the best method, Proximate Cause: That cause, which in natural and
unless the emergency in which he finds himself is continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
brought about by his own negligence.
intervening cause, produces the injury and without which
the result would not have occurred.
The law considers what will be reckless, blameworthy or
negligent in the man or ordinary intelligence and Art. 2180.
prudence and determines liability by that. (Mandarin Villa “The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is
Inc. vs CA)
demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions,
but also for those of persons for whom one is
When there is evidence to prove that a little more caution responsible.
from the part of the defendant could have avoided the The father and, in case of his death or
collision absent negligence, he may be civially liable for incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages
hospital bills and unearned salaries of victims. (Vergara caused by the minor children who live in their company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the
minors or incapacitated persons who are under their
Concept of a Prudent Man: It is he who in the authority and live in their company.
performance of an act should foresee the consequences The owners and managers of an establishment
of the same. If he does he is not negligent; if he does not, or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages
he is negligent.
caused by their employees in the service of the branches
- One who takes precautions against any harm when in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of
there is something before him to suggest or warn of the their functions.
danger, or to foresee it.
Employers shall be liable for the damages
caused by their employees and household helpers acting
Doctrine of Last Clear Chance: within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the
Where both parties are guilty of negligences, but former are not engaged in any business or industry.
the negligent act of one succeeds that of the other by an The State is responsible in like manner when it
appreciable interval of time, the one who has the last acts through a special agent; but not when the damage
reasonable opportunity to avoid the impending harm and has been caused by the official to whom the task done
fails to do so, is chargeable with the consequences, properly pertains, in which case what is provided in
without reference to the prior negligence of the other Article 2176 shall be applicable.
party. (Picart v. Smith)
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of
arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by
Even though a person’s own acts may have their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they
placed him in a position of peril, and an injury results, the remain in their custody.
injured person is entitled to recovery. A person who has The responsibility treated of in this article shall
the last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding the cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that
accident, notwithstanding the negligent acts of his they observed all the diligence of a good father of a
opponent or that of a third person imputed to the family to prevent damage.” (1903a)
opponent is considered in law solely responsible for the
consequences of the accident. (Glan People’s Lumber Last Clear Chance applies to Banks: Even assuming
and hardware et.al v. IAC et. al)
RMC was negligent for entrusting funds to a dishonest
employee, yet the bank has that last clear opportunity to
Applies in a suit between the owners and drivers avert the injury incurred by its client, simply by faithfully
of colliding vehicles but not against carriers. It does not observing its self-imposed validation procedure. The
arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the bank is then held liable. (PBC v CA)

Jumalon and Pamonag 2018 ! San Beda College Alabang School of Law 3|page
When doctrine of Last Clear Chance is inapplicable unless from a careless construction, inspection or
Does not apply when the party charged is required to act user.

instantaneously, and the injury cannot be avoided by the 2. Both the inspection and user must have been at the
application of all means at hand after the peril is or time of the injury in control of the party charged.

should have been discovered. (Echevara v. Ramos) (Wigmore Evidence)

When Emergency Rule Doctrine is inapplicable Requisites of Res Ipsa Loquitur (Phils)

When their is a want of exercise of proper care in There arise a reasonable evidence in the absence of
the driving considering the wet and slippery condition of explanation that the injury arose from the defendant’s
the road, he should have reduced his speed and increase want of care when the following concur:

distance from the Pathfinder. (Orix Metro Leasing & 1. Where the thing which caused the injury, without
Finance Corp v. Mangalino)
fault of the injured person is under the exclusive
control of the defendant.

Negligence plus fortuitous event amount to Liability 2. That said injury in the ordinary course of things does
When the fortuitous event is coupled with not occur if he having such control use proper care.

negligence, defendant cannot be exempted from liability. (Espiritu v Phil. Power and Development)

As the act must be occasioned exclusively by the

violence of nature of human agencies to be considered APPLICATION OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR
excluded from liability.
Those who distribute a dangerous article or
When the negligence of a person concurs with agent, owe a degree of protection to the public
the Act of God in producing a loss, he may be exempt if proportionate to and commensurate with a danger
proved that that immediate cause of the damage was the involved. (Espiritu v Phil. Power and Development)

act of god.

To be exempted he must be free from any The intention of an unforeseen and unexpected
negligence or misconduct by which loss or damage has cause is not sufficient to relieve a wrongdoer from the
been occasioned. (NPC v. CA) consequences of negligence, if such negligence directly
and proximately cooperates with the independent cause
CONTRACTUAL TORT in the resulting injury. (MacAfee vs. Traver’s Gas Corp.)

The rule that there can be not liability for tort

when there is a pre-existing contractual relationship is APPLICATION OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR TO A
not absolute, for if there is an act that violates the DOCTOR IN A MALPRACTICE CASE
contract independently of the contract, there can be Applied when a doctor could not explain the
liability for tort. (Art.1314 of NCC)
reason why she left a rubber material inside the body of a
The wrongful expulsion of a passenger was a woman who gave birth through caesarian operation. She
breach of public duty by the air carrier— a case of quasi- alone conducted the operation.

delict. The acts which breaks the contract may also be a Requisites:
quasi-delict. (Airfrance v. Carrascoso)
1. The occurrence is the kind of thing that does not
ordinarily happen without negligence.

RES IPSA LOQUITUR 2. The occurrence must have been caused by an

“The thing speaks for itself” resorted in cases agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control
where negligence is hard to prove. It is a rule of evidence of the defendant.

rather than a rule on civil law.

3. The occurrence was not due to contribution or
The presumption of negligence is merely voluntary action of the plaintiff. (Gifi’s Law Dictionary)

rebuttable and not conclusive. It ca be proven otherwise.

The doctrine is an exception to the rule that in quasi- Claims for Medical Negligence must prove that a
delict cases the burden of proof lies in the plaintiff to health care provider either failed to do something which a
show the negligence of the defendant.
reasonably prudent health care provider would have
The gasoline stations was under the care of the done, or that he or she did something that a reasonably
defendant who gave no explanation at all regarding the prudent provider would not have done. (Leonila-Garcia
fire. It is fair to reasonably infer that the incident Rueda v. Pascasio)

happened because of want of care. The petitioner’s

failure to construct a fire wall as required by city Four elements involved in Medical Negligence Cases:
ordinances would support the finding of negligence. Duty, Breach, Injury and Proximate Causation

(Africa v. Caltex)
2-pronged evidence needed
Requisites of Res Ipsa Loquitur 1. Evidence as to the recognized standards of the
1. The apparatus must be such that in the ordinary medical community in the particular kind of case

instances no injurious operation is to be expected 2. Evidence that physician in question negligently

departed from this standard in his treatment.

Jumalon and Pamonag 2018 ! San Beda College Alabang School of Law 4|page
was merely a nurse, hence, not knowledgeable on the
The Hippocratic Oath mandates physicians to give process of intubation.

primordial consideration to the health and welfare of their A doctor is not expected to disclose all the side
patients. A mistake through gross negligence or effect of chemotherapy. Petitioner cannot possibly
incompetence or plain human error, may spell the predict how a particular client’s genetic make-up, state
difference between life and death. In this sense, the of mind, general health and body constitution would
doctor plays God on his patient’s fate.
resposnde to the treatment as these are dependent to
too many unknown. (Dr. Rubi Li v. Sps. Soliman)

Res Ipsa Loquitur is applicable in Medical

malpractice claims, when circumstances attendant upon DOCTRINE OF INFORMED CONSENT
the harm are themselves such a character as to justify an A physician has a duty to disclose what a
inference of negligence as the cause of the harm. reasonable prudent physician in the medical community
(Erlinda Ramos v CA)
in the exercise of reasonable care would disclose to his
patient as to whatever grave risks of injury might be
Mere invocation and application of the doctrine incurred from a proposed course of treatment, so that a
does not dispense with the requirement of proof of patient, exercising ordinary care for his own welfare and
negligence. It is simply a step in the process of such faced with a choice of undergoing the proposed
proof, permitting the plaintiff to present along with the treatment, or alternative treatment, or none at all, may
proof of the accident, enough of the attending intelligently exercise his judgement by reasonably
circumstances to invoke the doctrine creating an balancing the probable risks against the probably
inference of negligence and to thereby place on the benefits. (Black’s Law Dictionary)

defendant the burden of going forward with the proof. The scope of disclosure is premised on a fact
(Erlinda Ramos v CA)
that patients ordinarily are persons unlearned in the
m e d i c a l s c i e n c e s . T h e s c o p e o f p h y s i c i a n ’s
Other Instances when Doctrine was applied: communications to the patient them must be measured
1. Leaving of a foreign object in the body of the patient with the patient’s need, and that the need is whatever
after an operation. (Armstrong v. Wallace)
information is material to the decision. The test therefore
2. Injuries sustained on a healthy part of the body which for determining a potential peril must be divulged is its
was not under or in the area of treatment. (Thomsen materiality to the patient’s decision. (Cobbs v. Grant)

v. Burgeson)

3. Removal of the wrong part of the body when another FOUR ELEMENTS OF MALPRACTICE
part was intended. (Griffin v. Norman)
1. The physician had a duty to disclose material risks

4. Knocking out a tooth while a patient’s jaw was under 2. He failed to disclose or inadequately disclosed those
anesthetic for the removal of tonsils. (Brown v. risks.

3. As direct and proximate result of such failure, the
5. Loss of an eye while the patient plaintiff was under patient consented to treatment she otherwise would
the influence of anesthetic, during or following not have consented to

operation of appendicitis. (Meadows v. Patterson)

4. Plaintiff was injured by the proposed treatment

Res Ipsa Loquitur is not a rigid doctrine Gravamen: Plaintiff point to a significant undisclosed
It does not automatically apply to all cases of information relating to her treatment which would have
medical negligence as to mechanically shift the burden of altered her decision. (Davis v. Kraff)

proof to the defendant to show that he is not guilty of the

ascribed negligence.
Not a rigid or ordinary doctrine to be
perfunctorily used, but a rule to be cautiously applied, PRINCIPLE OF DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA
depending upon the circumstances of each case.
-the principle means “damage without injury”.

Restricted to situations where a layman is able to -If there is no legal wrong or violation of right, the act of
say, as a matter of common knowledge and observation, person may not result in an action for damges. If a
that the consequences of professional care were not as person, in defense may himself injures or kills another,
such would ordinarily have followed if due care had been the latter cannot recover damages because legally no
wrong caused.

Does not apply to cases which involved the

merits of diagnoses or of a scientific treatment.
The mere fact that the plaintiff suffered losses
does not give rise to a right to recover damages.  To
Negligence of the defendants warrant the recovery of damages, there must be both a
The evidence of plaintiffs however show that is was right of action for a legal wrong inflicted by the
traceable to the wrongful insertion of the tube which was defendant, and damage resulting to the plaintiff
rejected by the court of appeals because the witness therefrom.  Wrong without damage, or damage without

Jumalon and Pamonag 2018 ! San Beda College Alabang School of Law 5|page
wrong, does not constitute a cause of action, since Art. 2147. The officious manager shall be liable for any
damages are merely part of the remedy allowed for the fortuitous event:
injury caused by a breach or wrong. (Spouses Cristino (1) If he undertakes risky operations which the owner was
and Brigida Custodio et al vs CA)
not accustomed to embark upon;
(2) If he has preferred his own interest to that of the
-as manmade can be seen from the provisions of the CC.
(3) If he fails to return the property or business after
In order that a common carrier may be absolved demand by the owner;
from liability in case of force majeure, it is not enough (4) If he assumed the management in bad faith. (1891a)
that the accident was caused by force majeure. The bus
company must still prove that it was not negligent in Art. 2148. Except when the management was assumed
causing the injuries resulting from such accident. The to save property or business from imminent danger, the
bus driver did not immediately stop the bus at the height officious manager shall be liable for fortuitous events:
of the commotion; the bus was speeding from a full stop; (1) If he is manifestly unfit to carry on the management;
the victims fell from the bus door when it was opened or (2) If by his intervention he prevented a more competent
gave way while the bus was still running; the conductor person from taking up the management. (n)
panicked and blew his whistle after people had already
fallen off the bus; and the bus was not properly equipped • Inspite of fortuitous event, there is liability in the
with doors, the bus company is still guilty of fault and aforesaid provisions of the law, because while there
negligence. (Bachelor Express vs. CA)
is fortuitous event, it is not the proximate and only
case as it is couple with human intervention.

INSTANCES WHEN THERE IS LIABILITY IN CASE OF • To exempt a person from liability, the fortuitous event
FORTUITOUS EVENT must be the proximate and only cause.

GENERAL RULE: It is a basic principle that no one shall • But if coupled with human intervention of say,
be liable for as long as it is the proximate and only cause.
negligence, the act of God would become
Exceptions: When the law expressly specifies it (Art humanized and with humanization of an act of God,
man becomes liable for damages.

Some provisions of CC which expressly specify that a RATIONALE BEHIND NON-LIABILITY in CASE OF
person may be liable even in cases of fortuitous event FORTUITOUS EVENT
Actus Dei Nemini Nocet – the act of God does injury to
no one

Art. 1942. The bailee is liable for the loss of the thing, However, even if the fortuitous event is the
even if it should be through a fortuitous event: proximate of the loss or injury, if there was an intervening
(1) If he devotes the thing to any purpose different from fault, negligence, fraud, delay or contravention of the
that for which it has been loaned; tenor of the obligation, still there would attach some
(2) If he keeps it longer than the period stipulated, or after liability to the person. (Art. 1170)

the accomplishment of the use for which

the commodatum has been constituted; MERE DIFFICULTY IN FORESEEING AN EVENT IS
(3) If the thing loaned has been delivered with appraisal of NOT A GROUND TO ABSOLVE

its value, unless there is a stipulation exemption the It is not enough that the event should not have
bailee from responsibility in case of a fortuitous event; been foreseen or anticipated, as it is commonly believed,
(4) If he lends or leases the thing to a third person, who is but it must be one impossible to foresee or to avoid. M
not a member of his household; ere difficulty to forsee the happening of the event is no
(5) If, being able to save either the thing borrowed or his impossibility to foresee the same.

own thing, he chose to save the latter.

Art. 1979. The depositary is liable for the loss of the thing Conviction is not necessary as it would be
through a fortuitous event: sufficient to establish that the unforeseen event, the
(1) If it is so stipulated; robbery in this case, did not take place without
(2) If he uses the thing without the depositor's concurrent fault on the debtor’s part, and this can be
permission; done by preponderance of evidence. (Austria vs. CA)

(3) If he delays its return;

(4) If he allows others to use it, even though he himself HIJACKING OF A PLANE, A FORTUITOUS EVENT
may have been authorized to use the same. (n) The hijacking of a plane, during martial law was
considered a fortuitous event or a force majeure because
the security of the airport during martial law was not the
concern of PAL.

Jumalon and Pamonag 2018 ! San Beda College Alabang School of Law 6|page
In order to constitute a caso fortuito that would CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM NEGLIGENCE AND
exempt from liability under Art 1174 of the civil code, it is CRIME
necessary that the following elements must occur:
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the
(a) the cause of the breach of obligation must be preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the
independent of human will;
civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal
(b) the event must be unforeseeable or unavoidable;
Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for
(c) the event must be such as to render it impossible for the same act or omission of the defendant. (n)
the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner;

(d) the debtor must be free from any participation in or Art 2177 is predicated on Art 100 of RPC:

aggravation of the injury to the creditor.  Every person who may be criminally liable shall also be

civilly liable
Applying the above guidelines, the failure to
transport the petitioners safely from Davao to Manila was EFFECT OF ACQUITTAL IN CRIMINAL CASE
due to the skyjacking incident staged buy the MNLF -it shall not bar the filing of a subsequent civil action for
without connection to the private respondent, hence, damage.

independent of will of PAL or its passengers. The events Even if the accused is acquitted, he can still be held
rendered it impossible for PAL to perform its obligation in civilly liable.

a normal manner and it cannot be faulted for negligence The quantum of evidence to obtain the guilt of the
on the duty performed by the military. The existence of accused is beyond reasonable doubt, while to hold a
force majeure has been established thus exempting PAL person civilly liable, only preponderance of evidence is
from payment of damages. (Gacal vs. PAL)
required, hence, the court would merely say that the case
is more of civil rather than criminal.

-conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as EFFECT OF THE RULES OF COURT
a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls RULE 113, Sec. 1 When a criminal action is instituted,
below the standard to which he is required to conform for the civil action for recovery of civil liability is impliedly
his own protection.
instituted with the criminal action unless the offended
-this defense does not exempt the defendant totally from party waives the civil action, reserves his right to institute
liability. It merely reduces whatever liability the court may separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the
impose upon defendant if such defense is proven.
criminal action.


-one who suddenly finds himself in a place of ART. 2178: The provisions of Articles 1172-1174 are also
danger, and is required to act without time to consider applicable to quasi-delict.
the best means that may be adopted to avoid the
impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to Art. 1172. Responsibility arising from negligence in the
adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may performance of every kind of obligation is also
appear to have been a better method, unless the demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the
emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by courts, according to the circumstances.
his own negligence.

Avoiding such immediate peril would be the Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists
natural course to take particularly where the vehicle in in the omission of that diligence which is required by the
the opposite lane would be several meters away and nature of the obligation and corresponds with the
could very well slow down, move to the side of the road circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the
and give way to the oncoming car. This is supported by place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions
the emergency rule. (Mckee vs. IAC)
of Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the diligence which
DILIGENCE IN SELECTION AND SUPERVISION is to be observed in the performance, that which is
Due diligence in selection of employees is not satisfied expected of a good father of a family shall be required.
by finding that the applicant possessed a professional
driver's license. The employer should also examine the Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law,
applicant for his qualifications, experience and record of or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when
service. Due diligence in supervision, on the other hand, the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of
requires the formulation of rules and regulations for the risk, no person shall be responsible for those events
guidance of employees and issuance of proper which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen,
instructions as well as actual implementation and were inevitable.
monitoring of consistent compliance with the rules.
(Fabre and Cabil vs. CA)

Jumalon and Pamonag 2018 ! San Beda College Alabang School of Law 7|page
The owners and managers of an establishment or
“Proximate cause” - that adequate and efficient causes enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused
which in the natural order of events and under the by their employees in the service of the branches in
particular circumstances surrounding the case would which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their
naturally produce the event.

If the act of a person causes damage to another and it is Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by
the proximate cause of the damage done, there is no their employees and household helpers acting within the
question that he is liable. But if the injured party has scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are
concurring negligence that aggravated the injury, he can not engaged in any business or industry.
recover damages, but the court would temper of the
award of damages because of contributory negligence of The State is responsible in like manner when it acts
the injured party.
through a special agent; but not when the damage has
been caused by the official to whom the task done
In Ramos, the violation of the traffic rule of MMDA was properly pertains, in which case what is provided in
considered as a contributory negligence which absolved Article 2176 shall be applicable. Lastly, teachers or heads
Ramos of his liability. (Lambert Ramos v. COL Realty of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for
damages caused by their pupils and students or
apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.
While in NPC, violation of pocket mining prohibition was
not considered as a contributory negligence for the The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease
electrocution of Noble by the sagging high tension wires when the persons herein mentioned prove that they
which was ruled as an accident waiting to happen. observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to
Vicarious liability - “Imputed negligence” - Liability prevent damage.
attributed to an individual not on the basis of his/her
conduct but because of the conduct of another for which This is without prejudice to the defense of diligence of a
s/he becomes legally responsible - primary and solidary good father of a family. If like an employer, such defense
liability. (NPC v. Heirs of Noble Casionan) is not proven, the the employer and the employee are
solidarily liable as they are joint tortfeasors.
One who negligently create a dangerous
condition cannot escape liability for the natural and 1. LIABILITY OF PARENTS

probable consequences thereof, although the act of a - No longer alternative

third person, or an act of God for which he is not

responsible, intervenes to precipitate the loss. When a Deep pocket rule - that damages can be obtained from
person’s negligence concurs with an act of God in co-defendants based on who is capable of paying, rather
producing a loss, such person is not exempt from liability than who was found to be more negligent

by showing that the immediate cause of the damage was The culprit’s father is not liable for he could not have
the act of God. (Nakpil & Sons v. CA)
prevented the damage, which happened at school,
where the child was ought to be under the supervision of
Art. 2179 When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the the school authorities. (Maria Teresa Cuadra v. Alfonso
immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot Monfort)
recover damages. But if his negligence was only
contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the LIABILITY OF EMANCIPATED CHILD’S FATHER
injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff The marriage of a minor does not relieve its parents of
may recover damages, but the court shall mitigate the the duty to see to it that the child, while still a minor does
damages to be rewarded. not give cause to any litigation (Elcano v. Hill)


Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is Defense of diligence of a good father of a family in the
demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, supervision and instruction of the child. If they fail to
but also for those of persons for whom one is prove the defense, they may be held solidarily liable. (Libi
responsible. The father and, in case of his death or v. IAC)

incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages Their liability is primary and not subsidiary (no defenses
caused by the minor children who live in their company. available) and they can invoke a valid and substantial

Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors

or incapacitated persons who are under their authority
and live in their company.

Jumalon and Pamonag 2018 ! San Beda College Alabang School of Law 8|page
is a transfer of custody, instruction, supervision or
parental control to the adopting parents

The minor was the subject of an adoption proceeding at

the time he killed a playmate. The natural parents were
held liable in spite of the retroactive effects of the decree
of adoption. This is so because at the time of the
incident, the adopting parents had no actual or physical
custody over the adopted child. (Tamargo v. CA)


- Term manager is synonymous with employer

The term manager is used in the sense of employer, not

employee, hence, the manager is not held liable. (Phil.
Rabbit v. PhilAm Forwarders)


- Employee must be acting within the scope of their
assigned tasks

An owner of a vehicle cannot be held liable for an

accident involving the said vehicle if the same was driven
without his consent or knowledge and by a person not
employed by him. (Duavit v. CA)


Funtecha, who was tasked to clean the school, is an
employee of Filamer. He need not have an official
appointment for a driver’s position in order that the
petitioner may be held responsible for his grossly
negligent act, it being sufficient that the act of driving at
the time of the incident was for the benefit of the
petitioner. (Filamer Christian Institute v. IAC)


Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by
their employees and household helpers acting within the
scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former
are not engaged in any business or industry. The
responsibility is primary, that is the injured party may
recover from the employers directly regardless of the
solvency of their employees. (Philtranco Service
Enterprises INc. v. CA)

Jumalon and Pamonag 2018 ! San Beda College Alabang School of Law 9|page